Well, Frank, I asked you first. There is no "the mislogic of war". There are necessary wars and unnecessary wars. And most people know that when they go into one. Suggesting our ancestors were war lovers involved in useless enterprises is just plain insulting and stupid. Steve Evil may have fallen for the bait, but I won't explain anything without you explaining first.

Also, once and for all, could you, would you: try to not post one liners in this thread, one minute apart, please. We know you can do better and we sort of kind of asked you before not too long ago. This is an extension of the Pavilion and it cannot serve its purpose if you drag it down with spur-of-the-moment one-liners. Do you follow me?I hope Mike reads this too.

No offense, but try to treat this a bit like the Pavilion so people can occasionally come over here and not suffer the full impact of forum madness.

Jan wrote:Did you guys have any parents or grandparents that took part in a war?

Well, my father's parents both died before he was ten so that'd be a "no" on the paternal side. My father was too young for WWII, but got drafted for two years during Korea (never went to Korea, just stayed in the States). One or two of his brothers and cousins went to Europe and were in France at one point or other, but I never heard anything particularly interesting or know much more than that.

My maternal grandfather was a mechanic with a young family and living in Detroit at the time, so he wasn't drafted and didn't join up as a result, but he did work on fixing tanks and whatnot; my uncle was born in 1941, and he apparently missed out on Vietnam by becoming a fireman.

So in our immediate family, I've apparently been the only one to voluntarily join up during wartime.

It's a rarety that war is ever justified. There is international law, just war theory, the Nuremberg standards. There has to be an imminent threat of attack or an actual attack, and you still have to go through the UN Security Council. There hasn't been a legal or just war since WW2, and even that one war crimes.

I take from your statement that the word defense does mean something to you.I also assume you know the difference between governments and soldiers.If this is correct, then perhaps you can also see what was wrong and perhaps arrogant about your statement.

Perhaps you know there are two parties in a war. There are dozens of wars and war-like conflicts going on, and all parties involved in any of them are in the wrong?The Americans, on the other hand, were the last people who were ever right?Yeah right, Frank.

---

I love these family histories - don't feel constrained by the war theme - what about migration, ethnicity etc.? I'm damn interested in that stuff, perhaps others are too. (And Frank, in this case you can't say your family didn't participate.)

Jan wrote: Steve Evil may have fallen for the bait, but I won't explain anything without you explaining first.

No, I just answered a question that interested me and was quite curious how it would be recieved.

As far as my family is concerned, migration is inseperable from war, but another chapter may soon open. I just might have to leave the country to find work. Not so long ago people used to come here for the very same reason. How circular history becomes! (hopefully not the war part. . .)

Jan, I can see you have had a limited reading of military history. General Smedley Butler pretty much summed it up--War is a racket. We use the military to promote power interests all over the world and to overthrow elected governments that we do not like. Look what just happened in Honduras.

Unless we are attacked by another country, it cannot be called a war--maybe aggression, but not a war. Aggression is the supreme crime. The victims may call that an act of war, but that doesn't justify it.

Most wars nowadays are either tribal or because of economic interests masked as national security concern. Our military is basically a force that props up our economic imperialism. Ask Edwardo Galeano.

Unless we are attacked by another country, it cannot be called a war--maybe aggression, but not a war. Aggression is the supreme crime.

Exactly - you get a war when, for example, the other party defends itself.Therefore, if you are complaining about war and soldiers, instead of aggression, you are complaining about people who defend themselves or are sent to defend others, the same way you do about aggressors.I don't need to read military history to grasp elementary concepts.Saying that war is stupid, a racket etc. is stating the obvious and hasn't helped anyone yet.

War is a racket. We use the military to promote power interests all over the world and to overthrow elected governments that we do not like.

You mean you use aggression.

Our military is basically a force that props up our economic imperialism.

The military existst to protect nations and populations - unless presidents and dictators abuse their power.

Anyways, let's drop this soon - I'll never understood your views and concepts or logic, starting with your political allegiance to anarchaism.

Jan, all leaders abuse power; I bet you cannot name one that hasn't. As I.F. Stone said, "All Governments Lie!"

Actual defense is ok, but that term has been used as propaganda for aggressive means. Hitler was "defending" Germany against the evil of the jews. Every tin pot somebody uses that term, no matter how far from the pitchers mound they stand. That's a baseball term, ya damned European thang...lol

And don't act like my views are alien. Radical views are a central part of the political jungle. I will not allow denegration of it. I bite.